LeBron James' 4-6 Record is Equally As Impressive as Jordan's 6-0

[migya]

Stacked Deck yet still played better teams in the Finals than his own in 2007, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. Not really "stacking the deck"...or maybe LeBron James isn't good at card games.

Jordan played teams better than his in 1992 and 1993, arguably 1996.

Joining two top 10 players and losing the first season against an older and less talented team isn't a showing anything impressive

Forgive me, your position is that the '92 Blazers were better than the '92 Bulls, and the '96 Sonics were better than the '96 Bulls?

Yes, Blazers were definitely more talented and so were Sonics though most would argue they weren't.

Blazers had Porter and Drexler, one of the best backcourts in nba history. Kersey and Buck Williams were both among the best at their positions in different ways. Duckworth was an allstar the year before. Cliff Robinson on the bench as well as Danny Ainge, among others. Bulls had Jordan and Pippen, an overachieving Horace and nothing else to note.

Sonics had Payton and Kemp, Hawkins, Schrempf and Perkins, better than the Bulls as a whole. The bench was better for the Sonics. Bulls were great as a team but it wasn't on their talent.

[DirtyDez]

My formula on championships comes down to which guy won a title in a year that they shouldn’t have and didn’t win in a year they should have…

Should have and didn’t: Lebron 2011
Shouldn’t have a did: MJ 93’ and Lebron 16’

I don’t think the Bulls should have won in 90’ or 95’. Detroit was the better regular season team and still in dynasty mode. I think the 93’ Suns had more talent/were favored in the finals and Jordan went God mode.

Slight edge to MJ by my calculations.

[Texas Chuck]

Should have and didn’t: Lebron 2011
.

I hate to be the guy bringing this up all the time because it makes me look like a homer. But Dallas was a better team than Miami that entire year. And Dallas won 6 of the 8 meeting between the teams.

I realize Dallas only had one star to the Heat's 3 and so its easy to assume that was an upset. But that was a deep, talented, smart, veteran team with a deep and talented coaching staff guiding them against Spo before he was really Spo.

I have that not as a title that Lebron and the Heat should have won. Obviously they could have won it. But Dallas was the better team and if they play that series out 100 times Dallas probably wins 55 or more times.

Remember Dirk went HAM in the Western playoffs. But in the Finals he was merely his usual self. This wasn't Dirk rising up and singlehandedly upsetting the Heat. This was a very quality team win. Had Dirk gone off offensively like he did in the previous rounds it might have been a sweep, at the very least a gentleman's one.

[falcolombardi]

calling somethingh a ring they should or shouldnt have won is fairly arbitrary to me

i would rather evaluate the level of play regardless of whether they won/lost or "should" have won or lpst

[sansterre]

Jordan played teams better than his in 1992 and 1993, arguably 1996.

Joining two top 10 players and losing the first season against an older and less talented team isn't a showing anything impressive

Forgive me, your position is that the '92 Blazers were better than the '92 Bulls, and the '96 Sonics were better than the '96 Bulls?

Yes, Blazers were definitely more talented and so were Sonics though most would argue they weren't.

Blazers had Porter and Drexler, one of the best backcourts in nba history. Kersey and Buck Williams were both among the best at their positions in different ways. Duckworth was an allstar the year before. Cliff Robinson on the bench as well as Danny Ainge, among others. Bulls had Jordan and Pippen, an overachieving Horace and nothing else to note.

Sonics had Payton and Kemp, Hawkins, Schrempf and Perkins, better than the Bulls as a whole. The bench was better for the Sonics. Bulls were great as a team but it wasn't on their talent.

Okay.

If you believe that in '96 the Sonics were more "talented" than the Bulls and in '92 the Blazers were more "talented" than the Bulls then I have some deep questions about what the heck "talented" means and why it matters at all. I mean . . . Michael Jordan was pretty "talented" . . . right?

[magicman1978]

Should have and didn’t: Lebron 2011
.

I hate to be the guy bringing this up all the time because it makes me look like a homer. But Dallas was a better team than Miami that entire year. And Dallas won 6 of the 8 meeting between the teams.

I realize Dallas only had one star to the Heat's 3 and so its easy to assume that was an upset. But that was a deep, talented, smart, veteran team with a deep and talented coaching staff guiding them against Spo before he was really Spo.

I have that not as a title that Lebron and the Heat should have won. Obviously they could have won it. But Dallas was the better team and if they play that series out 100 times Dallas probably wins 55 or more times.

Remember Dirk went HAM in the Western playoffs. But in the Finals he was merely his usual self. This wasn't Dirk rising up and singlehandedly upsetting the Heat. This was a very quality team win. Had Dirk gone off offensively like he did in the previous rounds it might have been a sweep, at the very least a gentleman's one.

Full credit to Dallas for winning that series and the great defense on LeBron, but it wasn't just Dallas playing well, it was LeBron playing well below his usual form that resulted in Dallas winning.

Game 2 - Miami is up 15 with around 6 minutes left. The go on a 20-5 run to close out the game to win by 2. LeBron shoots 0-4. His confidence begins to falter.

Game 4 - Miami is up 7 in the 4th. LeBron has 2 turnovers and is 0-1 in the 4th. Scores only 8pts the entire game. Dallas wins by 3.

Game 5 - completely winnable game in the 4th. Heat were even up 3 with a few minutes left. LeBron was 0-3 with a turnover, when the game was still within grasp.

3 very close games in the 4th where any other version of prime LeBron shows up and the Heat would have one. Taking nothing away from Dallas. They deserved to win that series and they did what they needed to completely destroy the confidence of arguably the GOAT player. If no one had any knowledge of what happened in the 2011 series and has watched every single playoff series/game LeBron has played in his prime - we're talking 40+ series' here, and well over 200 games - there's no way anyone could have in their wildest dreams imagine he would have played that badly against Dallas regardless of how they defended him.

[Texas Chuck]

[

Full credit to Dallas for winning that series and the great defense on LeBron, but it wasn't just Dallas playing well, it was LeBron playing well below his usual form that resulted in Dallas winning.

there's no way anyone could have in their wildest dreams imagine he would have played that badly against Dallas regardless of how they defended him.

Agree with the top. Disagree with the 2nd. Look at the 2 RS meetings(nobody but me ever mentions them so I'm not sure anyone else has bothered). Lebron had similar struggles in those games too. It wasn't just the moment being too big or the pressure too great--though rarely has a player in a team sport faced more pressure to win than Lebron did in that series--Dallas knew what they were doing.

Dallas had a plan. And they had 3 defenders they could and did rotate against him and then had two 7 footers behind those guys providing help. They chose always to put a weaker defender on Wade and make a very intentional choice not to let Lebron beat them because they were convinced Wade and Bosh couldn't.

Now they can't have counted on Lebron being quite that passive. But they confused him. Their wings were not intimidated by him one little bit and that clearly threw Lebron a bit because he was used to half the battle being fought before the game with guys being psyched out.

[DirtyDez]

Should have and didn’t: Lebron 2011
.

I hate to be the guy bringing this up all the time because it makes me look like a homer. But Dallas was a better team than Miami that entire year. And Dallas won 6 of the 8 meeting between the teams.

I realize Dallas only had one star to the Heat's 3 and so its easy to assume that was an upset. But that was a deep, talented, smart, veteran team with a deep and talented coaching staff guiding them against Spo before he was really Spo.

I have that not as a title that Lebron and the Heat should have won. Obviously they could have won it. But Dallas was the better team and if they play that series out 100 times Dallas probably wins 55 or more times.

Remember Dirk went HAM in the Western playoffs. But in the Finals he was merely his usual self. This wasn't Dirk rising up and singlehandedly upsetting the Heat. This was a very quality team win. Had Dirk gone off offensively like he did in the previous rounds it might have been a sweep, at the very least a gentleman's one.

The Mavs did a great job on him down the stretch but we’re talking about a top-2 player in his prime with a title on the line. Lebron simply didn’t rise up. I can differentiate him flaming out while acknowledging Dallas being fully deserving but I would call Miami the best team in the league throughout the season. Chicago had the most wins and Miami smoked them.

[magicman1978]

[

Full credit to Dallas for winning that series and the great defense on LeBron, but it wasn't just Dallas playing well, it was LeBron playing well below his usual form that resulted in Dallas winning.

there's no way anyone could have in their wildest dreams imagine he would have played that badly against Dallas regardless of how they defended him.

Agree with the top. Disagree with the 2nd. Look at the 2 RS meetings(nobody but me ever mentions them so I'm not sure anyone else has bothered). Lebron had similar struggles in those games too. It wasn't just the moment being too big or the pressure too great--though rarely has a player in a team sport faced more pressure to win than Lebron did in that series--Dallas knew what they were doing.

Dallas had a plan. And they had 3 defenders they could and did rotate against him and then had two 7 footers behind those guys providing help. They chose always to put a weaker defender on Wade and make a very intentional choice not to let Lebron beat them because they were convinced Wade and Bosh couldn't.

Now they can't have counted on Lebron being quite that passive. But they confused him. Their wings were not intimidated by him one little bit and that clearly threw Lebron a bit because he was used to half the battle being fought before the game with guys being psyched out.

I think how he played in the playoffs was different than the regular season. He didn't play great in the two regular season games, but he also didn't become completely passive. It the finals, it seemed like he just stopped trying. I can't recall any other playoff series where that was the case for consecutive games.

Edit - just looked at the second meeting which was a close game. LeBron scored 11 pts in the 4th. He only had 16pts in the 4th in the finals, and games 2 through 5, he only scored 4pts in the 4th. He just went full passive mode and every one of these games were close games. I have a hard time recalling any other close playoff games where this was the case for him, much less that many in a row.

[Texas Chuck]

Yeah sorry for the brief derail on that. I think Dallas was the better team and thus saying Lebron "should" have won is incorrect.

But that's not really that pertinent here. Lebron definitely had a very poor Finals which is relevant. Because if he had a typical Lebron Finals(I think the Dallas gameplan and lineup is a bigger part of why he didn't but...) then he might be 5-5. And if he's 5-5, an already weak argument for choosing 6-0 becomes absolutely no argument at all.

[VanWest82]

As a long time Buffalo Bills fan going back to the 80s I have to say I’d rather have the titles.

[DQuinn1575]

As a long time Buffalo Bills fan going back to the 80s I have to say I’d rather have the titles.

And any Chicago Bear fan from the 80s would much rather have the 1 title than any number of appearances.

[Sark]

My formula on championships comes down to which guy won a title in a year that they shouldn’t have and didn’t win in a year they should have…

Should have and didn’t: Lebron 2011
Shouldn’t have a did: MJ 93’ and Lebron 16’

I don’t think the Bulls should have won in 90’ or 95’. Detroit was the better regular season team and still in dynasty mode. I think the 93’ Suns had more talent/were favored in the finals and Jordan went God mode.

Slight edge to MJ by my calculations.

538 counted adjusted rings. Jordan is 1.9 above expected, and James is 0.2 above expected. Basically Jordan should have lost to Phoenix or 98 Jazz, or perhaps both.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-should-lebrons-finals-record-hurt-his-legacy/amp/

[Asianiac_24]

I think the real question is, if you swap LeBron and Jordan, how many rings would each have?

IMO LeBron still wins 6 or more with Chicago, especially when you consider that he had a much longer prime and he would theoretically be playing in 94, 95, and 99+.

I'll give Jordan 2011, but I don't see MJ winning in place of LeBron in 2007, 2014, 2017, and 2018. Jordan might not win 2016, and 35 year old MJ might not win 2020 as well. So Jordan has at least 3 (2011-2013), but a maybe in 2016 and 2020.

[DCasey91]

Suns had an injury and weren’t great defensively (you can make a case to the Suns as being a more talented offensive team overall until you get to MJ, on defense no chance), 98 Jazz were as old as the 98 Bulls and Stockton put up 9 a game and Kukoc was fantastic. Could also say the Bulls were deeper.

The only surprise was the Sonics for me (Bulls obviously better but Sonics was locking up MJ) all of the Bulls chips they were clearly the better team.

It’s really 11’ for LBJ which is a black mark no question.

07 - no too young crap team
11 - sh*t the bed
12 - won easily
13 - 50/50 (Great series between two great teams)
14 - Spurs played probably the most beautiful basketball ever. Deeper than the marina trench. Leonard became what he was to come. Bosh and Wade severely underperformed
15 - injury
16 - injury on the other side but I rate LBJ a lot higher because GSW was still more than capable compared it to Cavs 2015 at putting them away and should have tbh. (2015 Irving out, and Mozgov? Hmm)
17,18 - lol no GSW were broken (18’ was a magical run. If the Pacers Sabonis/Turner were older they would have won. Check that Pacers squad very deep led by peak Oladipo.
2020 - Won

Comparing the two holistically. LBJ has had worst luck, MJ on the other-hand had about the best continuity/luck you can think of. His first chip he got the no longer showtime Lakers and Pistons got old and Pippen/Grant entered peak/prime ages. And on comp didn’t verse the Celtics garnering a super squad, Spurs and GSW dynasties one after the other including 09-10 Lakers. Much more parity at the top for me on serious comp. MJ didn’t verse a dynasty now you can say the Bulls were one no doubt duh. But it stands to reason the Jazz was the gauntlet team and both Bulls and themselves in 97,98 weren’t at their best.

Celtics 08 onwards
Lakers in the West
Young OKC team/like the young Magic that was short lived
Spurs for god knows how long
GSW post 30

That’s 4 stud teams including LBJ’s Cavs/Heat/Cavs tenure with the OKC up trending but like the Magic for different reasons disbanded (Injury to the Magic, OKC we know what happened). The Shaq/Penny/Grant trio had the potential no doubt about it.

Legit teams were raffling championships because it was as serious as it comes. It fact when it comes to parity, LBJ’s prime (which is absurdly long) opponents at the top it’s just flat out better. Any of those teams could have won more or less but they did win, some multiples times. That’s a great comp to me.

96 No Grant, And Rodman was playing basically at his best that run.

Honestly for me whenever someone mentions comp between the two just outline that. Seriously

Rodman alluded to this. 96-01 or even earlier (94,95) for me is highly questionable peer depth.

94’ finals win wasn’t a great team it was led by a peak ATG though
95’ would have been one heck of a series.
97/98 both teams weren’t at their best
99’ maybe the weakest year in NBA record.
00’ Led by old Miller still went to 6 vs kid Kobe/Worldbreaker Shaq.

Catch my drift?

Put simply is this:

Young MJ got young Pippen/Grant and Phil and Krause as the main pillars here.

Now check the data, metrics, WS, BPM all that good stuff on young PG at the Pacers and young Horford at the Hawks. Now it’s just players not the coach/gm.

I have no time being subjective it’s objective

All you need to do is give LBJ the same. Or just make it young Pippen/Grant to make it easier.

He just suffered his first seven seasons with no one near enough to his age demos without a comparable secondary elite compliment to pair with (young All Star lvl). He joined an old team and it stayed that way or got worse. 37 year old Shaq was one of the best players Lebron played with during his first stint. That’s pretty damn bad all things being fair and equal.

Conclusion:

Jordan more impressive

James had a harder time of it all up, he really had no respite since 07. That’s 10+ years because 19’ GSW was of course still broken lol.

Past is past Lebron 11 is equivalent to MJ 88 on timeline, and will go further back longer if Lebron has another good playoff run in him.

[G35]

Suns had an injury and weren’t great defensively (you can make a case to the Suns as being a more talented offensive team overall until you get to MJ, on defense no chance), 98 Jazz were as old as the 98 Bulls and Stockton put up 9 a game and Kukoc was fantastic. Could also say the Bulls were deeper.

The only surprise was the Sonics for me (Bulls obviously better but Sonics was locking up MJ) all of the Bulls chips they were clearly the better team.

It’s really 11’ for LBJ which is a black mark no question.

07 - no too young crap team
11 - sh*t the bed
12 - won easily
13 - 50/50 (Great series between two great teams)
14 - Spurs played probably the most beautiful basketball ever. Deeper than the marina trench. Leonard became what he was to come. Bosh and Wade severely underperformed
15 - injury
16 - injury on the other side but I rate LBJ a lot higher because GSW was still more than capable compared it to Cavs 2015 at putting them away and should have tbh. (2015 Irving out, and Mozgov? Hmm)
17,18 - lol no GSW were broken (18’ was a magical run. If the Pacers Sabonis/Turner were older they would have won. Check that Pacers squad very deep led by peak Oladipo.
2020 - Won

Comparing the two holistically. LBJ has had worst luck, MJ on the other-hand had about the best continuity/luck you can think of. His first chip he got the no longer showtime Lakers and Pistons got old and Pippen/Grant entered peak/prime ages. And on comp didn’t verse the Celtics garnering a super squad, Spurs and GSW dynasties one after the other including 09-10 Lakers. Much more parity at the top for me on serious comp. MJ didn’t verse a dynasty now you can say the Bulls were one no doubt duh. But it stands to reason the Jazz was the gauntlet team and both Bulls and themselves in 97,98 weren’t at their best.

Celtics 08 onwards
Lakers in the West
Young OKC team/like the young Magic that was short lived
Spurs for god knows how long
GSW post 30

That’s 4 stud teams including LBJ’s Cavs/Heat/Cavs tenure with the OKC up trending but like the Magic for different reasons disbanded (Injury to the Magic, OKC we know what happened). The Shaq/Penny/Grant trio had the potential no doubt about it.

Legit teams were raffling championships because it was as serious as it comes. It fact when it comes to parity, LBJ’s prime (which is absurdly long) opponents at the top it’s just flat out better. Any of those teams could have won more or less but they did win, some multiples times. That’s a great comp to me.

96 No Grant, And Rodman was playing basically at his best that run.

Honestly for me whenever someone mentions comp between the two just outline that. Seriously

Rodman alluded to this. 96-01 or even earlier (94,95) for me is highly questionable peer depth.

94’ finals win wasn’t a great team it was led by a peak ATG though
95’ would have been one heck of a series.
97/98 both teams weren’t at their best
99’ maybe the weakest year in NBA record.
00’ Led by old Miller still went to 6 vs kid Kobe/Worldbreaker Shaq.

Catch my drift?

Put simply is this:

Young MJ got young Pippen/Grant and Phil and Krause as the main pillars here.

Now check the data, metrics, WS, BPM all that good stuff on young PG at the Pacers and young Horford at the Hawks. Now it’s just players not the coach/gm.

I have no time being subjective it’s objective

All you need to do is give LBJ the same. Or just make it young Pippen/Grant to make it easier.

He just suffered his first seven seasons with no one near enough to his age demos without a comparable secondary elite compliment to pair with (young All Star lvl). He joined an old team and it stayed that way or got worse. 37 year old Shaq was one of the best players Lebron played with during his first stint. That’s pretty damn bad all things being fair and equal.

Conclusion:

Jordan more impressive

James had a harder time of it all up, he really had no respite since 07. That’s 10+ years because 19’ GSW was of course still broken lol.

Past is past Lebron 11 is equivalent to MJ 88 on timeline, and will go further back longer if Lebron has another good playoff run in him.

How do you factor in chemistry/continuity (Bulls) vs bad luck with (Cavaliers 2x/Heat/Lakers)....sometimes...many times you create your own good or bad luck.....

[DCasey91]

Suns had an injury and weren’t great defensively (you can make a case to the Suns as being a more talented offensive team overall until you get to MJ, on defense no chance), 98 Jazz were as old as the 98 Bulls and Stockton put up 9 a game and Kukoc was fantastic. Could also say the Bulls were deeper.

The only surprise was the Sonics for me (Bulls obviously better but Sonics was locking up MJ) all of the Bulls chips they were clearly the better team.

It’s really 11’ for LBJ which is a black mark no question.

07 - no too young crap team
11 - sh*t the bed
12 - won easily
13 - 50/50 (Great series between two great teams)
14 - Spurs played probably the most beautiful basketball ever. Deeper than the marina trench. Leonard became what he was to come. Bosh and Wade severely underperformed
15 - injury
16 - injury on the other side but I rate LBJ a lot higher because GSW was still more than capable compared it to Cavs 2015 at putting them away and should have tbh. (2015 Irving out, and Mozgov? Hmm)
17,18 - lol no GSW were broken (18’ was a magical run. If the Pacers Sabonis/Turner were older they would have won. Check that Pacers squad very deep led by peak Oladipo.
2020 - Won

Comparing the two holistically. LBJ has had worst luck, MJ on the other-hand had about the best continuity/luck you can think of. His first chip he got the no longer showtime Lakers and Pistons got old and Pippen/Grant entered peak/prime ages. And on comp didn’t verse the Celtics garnering a super squad, Spurs and GSW dynasties one after the other including 09-10 Lakers. Much more parity at the top for me on serious comp. MJ didn’t verse a dynasty now you can say the Bulls were one no doubt duh. But it stands to reason the Jazz was the gauntlet team and both Bulls and themselves in 97,98 weren’t at their best.

Celtics 08 onwards
Lakers in the West
Young OKC team/like the young Magic that was short lived
Spurs for god knows how long
GSW post 30

That’s 4 stud teams including LBJ’s Cavs/Heat/Cavs tenure with the OKC up trending but like the Magic for different reasons disbanded (Injury to the Magic, OKC we know what happened). The Shaq/Penny/Grant trio had the potential no doubt about it.

Legit teams were raffling championships because it was as serious as it comes. It fact when it comes to parity, LBJ’s prime (which is absurdly long) opponents at the top it’s just flat out better. Any of those teams could have won more or less but they did win, some multiples times. That’s a great comp to me.

96 No Grant, And Rodman was playing basically at his best that run.

Honestly for me whenever someone mentions comp between the two just outline that. Seriously

Rodman alluded to this. 96-01 or even earlier (94,95) for me is highly questionable peer depth.

94’ finals win wasn’t a great team it was led by a peak ATG though
95’ would have been one heck of a series.
97/98 both teams weren’t at their best
99’ maybe the weakest year in NBA record.
00’ Led by old Miller still went to 6 vs kid Kobe/Worldbreaker Shaq.

Catch my drift?

Put simply is this:

Young MJ got young Pippen/Grant and Phil and Krause as the main pillars here.

Now check the data, metrics, WS, BPM all that good stuff on young PG at the Pacers and young Horford at the Hawks. Now it’s just players not the coach/gm.

I have no time being subjective it’s objective

All you need to do is give LBJ the same. Or just make it young Pippen/Grant to make it easier.

He just suffered his first seven seasons with no one near enough to his age demos without a comparable secondary elite compliment to pair with (young All Star lvl). He joined an old team and it stayed that way or got worse. 37 year old Shaq was one of the best players Lebron played with during his first stint. That’s pretty damn bad all things being fair and equal.

Conclusion:

Jordan more impressive

James had a harder time of it all up, he really had no respite since 07. That’s 10+ years because 19’ GSW was of course still broken lol.

Past is past Lebron 11 is equivalent to MJ 88 on timeline, and will go further back longer if Lebron has another good playoff run in him.

How do you factor in chemistry/continuity (Bulls) vs bad luck with (Cavaliers 2x/Heat/Lakers)....sometimes...many times you create your own good or bad luck.....

That is true but it stands to reason some of the stuff I posted is completely out of one persons control.

That’s fairyland territory. You know who Mr. West is? His one and only championship he arguably played his worst playoff series.

Comparing championships with any goat candidate without context and thorough deliberation and examination as to the why holds zero weight imho.

The 4/5 candidates for me can paper scissor rock each other depending what your most important criteria is. peak, prime, longevity, rangz whatever so there needs to be context involved.

People around her barely talk about the financial disaster in the 90’s let alone peer comparing.

[migya]

Forgive me, your position is that the '92 Blazers were better than the '92 Bulls, and the '96 Sonics were better than the '96 Bulls?

Yes, Blazers were definitely more talented and so were Sonics though most would argue they weren't.

Blazers had Porter and Drexler, one of the best backcourts in nba history. Kersey and Buck Williams were both among the best at their positions in different ways. Duckworth was an allstar the year before. Cliff Robinson on the bench as well as Danny Ainge, among others. Bulls had Jordan and Pippen, an overachieving Horace and nothing else to note.

Sonics had Payton and Kemp, Hawkins, Schrempf and Perkins, better than the Bulls as a whole. The bench was better for the Sonics. Bulls were great as a team but it wasn't on their talent.

Okay.

If you believe that in '96 the Sonics were more "talented" than the Bulls and in '92 the Blazers were more "talented" than the Bulls then I have some deep questions about what the heck "talented" means and why it matters at all. I mean . . . Michael Jordan was pretty "talented" . . . right?

Jordan was not a team. Lebron is"talented" and yet some here have said the Heat and Cavs weren't the most talented.

92 Blazers, as I said; Peter much better than Paxson, more than Jordan was better than Drexler, Kersey want much less than Pippen, I think Buck was better than Horace and Duckworth was better than Cartwright. Blazers bench was also better, pretty easy to see. They just didn't step up, though they had game 6.

96 it takes deep insight. Payton was underrated and it was seen in the playoffs how good he was. Harper was just a defender at that point, Hersey Hawkins provided much more thigh he was only a third or fourth option. Schrempf wasn't as good as Pippen but his shooting in particular was very good. Kemp was better than Rodman and rose in the finals in such a way that he lifted his level on the biggest stage against a very good, yet dirty, defender in Rodman. Perkins was better than Longley. McMillan and couple of others on the bench were more talented as well.

Those Bulls were well coached, disciplined, focused and more committed than every other team. It wasn't talent that they won by as much as organisation, role and desire.

[migya]

I think the real question is, if you swap LeBron and Jordan, how many rings would each have?

IMO LeBron still wins 6 or more with Chicago, especially when you consider that he had a much longer prime and he would theoretically be playing in 94, 95, and 99+.

I'll give Jordan 2011, but I don't see MJ winning in place of LeBron in 2007, 2014, 2017, and 2018. Jordan might not win 2016, and 35 year old MJ might not win 2020 as well. So Jordan has at least 3 (2011-2013), but a maybe in 2016 and 2020.

Lebron would've shied on the biggest stage more than he did. He wouldn't cope with the toughness and roughness. He wouldn't will his team to win anywhere like Jordan did. They beat the injured and aging Lakers but lose to everyone else. Jordan destroys Dallas, Terry doesn't come close to outscoring him ( ), doesn't let his team get dismantled by the Spurs and destroys a shying away, inexperienced young Warriors, even without his two most talented teammates. He loses in 07 to the Spurs but scores 45pts a game and they maybe win one or two. Four straight in Miami, two straight in Cleveland.

[sansterre]

Yes, Blazers were definitely more talented and so were Sonics though most would argue they weren't.

Blazers had Porter and Drexler, one of the best backcourts in nba history. Kersey and Buck Williams were both among the best at their positions in different ways. Duckworth was an allstar the year before. Cliff Robinson on the bench as well as Danny Ainge, among others. Bulls had Jordan and Pippen, an overachieving Horace and nothing else to note.

Sonics had Payton and Kemp, Hawkins, Schrempf and Perkins, better than the Bulls as a whole. The bench was better for the Sonics. Bulls were great as a team but it wasn't on their talent.

Okay.

If you believe that in '96 the Sonics were more "talented" than the Bulls and in '92 the Blazers were more "talented" than the Bulls then I have some deep questions about what the heck "talented" means and why it matters at all. I mean . . . Michael Jordan was pretty "talented" . . . right?

Jordan was not a team. Lebron is"talented" and yet some here have said the Heat and Cavs weren't the most talented.

92 Blazers, as I said; Peter much better than Paxson, more than Jordan was better than Drexler, Kersey want much less than Pippen, I think Buck was better than Horace and Duckworth was better than Cartwright. Blazers bench was also better, pretty easy to see. They just didn't step up, though they had game 6.

96 it takes deep insight. Payton was underrated and it was seen in the playoffs how good he was. Harper was just a defender at that point, Hersey Hawkins provided much more thigh he was only a third or fourth option. Schrempf wasn't as good as Pippen but his shooting in particular was very good. Kemp was better than Rodman and rose in the finals in such a way that he lifted his level on the biggest stage against a very good, yet dirty, defender in Rodman. Perkins was better than Longley. McMillan and couple of others on the bench were more talented as well.

Those Bulls were well coached, disciplined, focused and more committed than every other team. It wasn't talent that they won by as much as organisation, role and desire.

Okay so, to be clear, everybody Jordan played with just wasn't that great, and everybody Jordan played against was a team of unstoppable monsters. And Jordan's teams only won because of Jordan and the teamwork of some plucky underdogs?

Is it possible that you are simply repeating the plot of Space Jam?